Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DePiep/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

DePiep nominated several categories for merging at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_June_20; the nom was unsuccessful. edited for about 25 minutes in toto, and all their edits (bar one) concentrate precisely on merging the categories nominated by DePiep. edited 4 articles in common with FPR, eg this; diff, diff. Finnsburuh Park Ranger made all their edits between 20:11, 22 November 2016 and  20:36, 22 November 2016; DePiep was busy editing on 22 Nov 2016 but made no edits between 19:37 and 20:52. Oculi (talk) 11:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I'm not convinced by this. I'm suspicious, but that's not enough. Railway gauge issues have also been plagued in the past (plagued!) by the sock-happy . If it's a question of "We know it's a sock, but no idea who", then I wouldn't want to point fingers without good evidence. I don't see behavioural evidence as compelling, because this is a narrow area which DePiep has always been usefully active in. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Comments by DePiep
 * The accusation was made originally in this CfD(!). Both by in nominating  and by  . The accusations contain errors that could have been prevented. So: made too soon, too sloppy, in the wrong place. Also, I do not see why the CfD nomination is there at all. Why not revert incorrect edits? -DePiep (talk) 12:10, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * To simply reverse all these edits would be edit-warring. Maybe CfD has changed its mind and I hadn't seen it? Also category-related edits are often very hard to reverse, as they don't always leave an audit trail if 'bots get involved (although that's seen more at Commons).
 * If anyone is wondering why I don't trust DePiep not to pull stunts like this in the first place, look at why they were blocked. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:PA. I think you misunderstand the purpose of this page. -DePiep (talk) 12:57, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: this edit by

Andy Dingley was added out of time-sequence (the later edit was put in front). My 12:57 response here was re. At the time of my editing, I did not seen that later addition. -DePiep (talk) 15:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * (ec) re DePiep edited 4 articles in common with FPR in the OP here: well, by maintaining (November edits only) this data set, it is very likely that I happen to work on pages where a rogue editor has been. I'm not going to research that for others, but likely this edit (diff 1/3 by Oculi, above) I made was to remove linking to an (at that moment) empty or redundant category.
 * this diff (2/3) was not by me.
 * this diff (3/3) is a parameter fix (nicely illustrating my maintenance works in the area).


 * In general, I find the arguments by Oculi too suggestive even to launch a CU. -DePiep (talk) 12:50, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
❌. Closing with no action.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)